What the Home Secretary’s Immigration Plans Will Mean for Vulnerable Migrants and Modern Slavery Victims

What the Home Secretary’s Immigration Plans Will MeanFor Vulnerable Migrants and Modern Slavery Victims

Sian Norris considers the implications of Suella Braverman’s potential plans for migrant people crossing the Channel

The Home Secretary Suella Braverman used her first conference in her new role to propose more sweeping changes to the UK’s asylum system, going even further than April’s Nationality and Borders Act.

According to The Times, Braverman plans to bar anyone who enters the UK via an irregular route, such as a small boat across the Channel, from claiming asylum, with an onus placed on the need for people seeking asylum to seek refuge in the first ‘safe country’ they pass through, such as France.

However, such plans will prove to be controversial and risk violating the 1951 Refugee Convention. The UNHCR is clear that “the Convention does not require refugees to claim asylum in the first safe country they reach, or make it illegal to seek asylum if a claimant has passed through another safe country”.

“While asylum-seekers do not have an unlimited right to choose their country of asylum, some might have very legitimate reasons to seek protection in a specific country, including where they might have family links. They may not have had a reasonable opportunity to claim asylum in other countries that might appear at first glance to be ‘safe’”, it adds.

The move comes after an increase in the number of small boat crossings being made across the Channel, with more than 33,000 people arriving via this route since the start of the year. A “clear majority” of those crossing the Channel are refugees, according to the UNHCR. 98% of those who arrive in the UK via small boats claim asylum.

“This is a day of shame for the Government as the mask finally slips on their refugee ‘protection’ system,” said Tim Naor-Hilton, CEO of Refugee Action. “It is now clear that this Home Secretary cares only for keeping people out, not keeping them safe. Banning those crossing the Channel from claiming asylum is a blatant breach of the international refugee laws that the UK proudly helped create in the first place”.

Steve Crawshaw, Director of Policy and Advocacy at Freedom from Torture, said: “Suella Braverman’s inhumane plans clearly undermine international rules introduced after the Holocaust that ensure no one fleeing persecution is refused protection because of how they arrive in a country. Beyond the deliberately cruel rhetoric, her proposals offer little new to the ever more extreme anti-refugee policies introduced over the last decade”. 

---

Lack of Safe Routes

Migrant and refugee rights campaigners have long argued that rather than penalise, criminalise or threaten to deport migrant people who arrive via the Channel, the Government must instead do more to promote safe and legal routes into the UK.

“These plans wilfully ignore the fact that it is a lack of safe routes into the country that pushes people into the hands of smugglers,” said Naor-Hilton. “Yet, instead of creating such routes, the Government is pulling up the drawbridge and turning its back on some of the world’s most desperate people”.

An example of how the lack of safe and legal routes is pushing people toward making the risky Channel crossing can be seen in the increase of Afghan arrivals since the Taliban takeover in August 2021.

While Operation Pitting led to the resettlement of thousands of at-risk Afghan people in the months following the UK/US withdrawal from the country, since then progress has stalled.

The Afghan Citizens Resettlement Scheme (ACRS) now has two pathways: Pathway Two focuses on resettlement in partnership with refugee agencies such as the UNHCR; and Pathway Three, which currently prioritises the resettlement of GARDA and British Council Staff, and Chevening alumni. It will open up to at-risk groups after the first year – i.e. in 2023.

But such a delay means that many vulnerable Afghan people are instead choosing to make the journey to the UK via an irregular route. The number of people from Afghanistan arriving across the Channel has increased from 494 people in 2020 to 1,094 in the first quarter of 2022. This was more than any other nationality. Previous to this, the majority of people arriving in the UK via the Channel came from Iran.

It’s not just a lack of safe routes from Afghanistan.

Rainbow Migration, which supports LGBTIQ people seeking asylum, told Byline Times how it has assisted people from Iran and Iraq who arrived via the Channel this year, and confirmed “there is no resettlement option on offer from the UK for LGBTIQ
people from either of these countries”.

“If there are no formal routes open and accessible to those who need them, then people will be forced to travel however they can in order to get here. A person is no less a refugee because they were unable to access a safe route to come here, and it is morally despicable to suggest otherwise,” a spokesperson said.

---

Modern Slavery

Braverman has also suggested she will overhaul the Modern Slavery Act to prevent migrant people from claiming to be victims in order to avoid deportation.

Such a move was mooted by her predecessor Priti Patel, who claimed that the modern slavery rules were being abused by serious criminals, including child rapists and threats to national security.

However, as this paper has previously reported, when challenged the Home Office was unable to provide data confirming how many people referred to the modern slavery system – known as the National Referral Mechanism – were subsequently charged with, or convicted of, child sex offences.

While it is true the number of people identified as victims of modern slavery has increased, this does not necessarily translate to more people abusing the system. Further, much of the increase can be accounted for by the rise in UK nationals being identified as victims, according to the organisation After Exploitation.

“The Government must be honest: Under UK law, there is no guaranteed protection for survivors of modern slavery, and this move would make things even worse,” said Maya Esslemont, Director of After Exploitation. “Right now, victims cannot be sure that they will have access to safe housing, counselling, or even reprieve from deportation, and immigration protection is only provided to victims on a ‘case-by-case’ basis. In fact, seven in 10 victims have their requests for support partially or entirely rejected by the Home Office”. 

One of the key targets of anti-migrant sentiment of late has been Albanian people, who accounted for 27% of the 4,171 potential victims of modern slavery identified between 1 April and 30 June this year. The number of Albanians crossing the Channel has increased this year, leading to some right-wing politicians and commentators to question whether the country known as Europe’s only narco-state is an unsafe country. However, 55% of Albanian arrivals are later granted asylum.

“Survivors overcome all odds by speaking out, and are usually forced to prove their abuse through a lengthy ‘determination’ process without a lawyer or caseworker to support them through the system,” Esslemont continued. “To move the goalposts, by making the system even more hostile for victims is staggeringly cruel, and not something ordinary members of the public would support. This move would embed disbelief and victim blaming into the Government’s bureaucracy, and serves only to embolden abusers whilst alienating victims of serious crime”.

---

What About Rwanda?

It’s unclear what the Home Secretary’s proposals mean for the Rwanda scheme, although The Times reports that “Braverman is working on plans to prevent the European Court of Human Rights from overruling the British Government on deporting migrants to Rwanda. Ministers are resigned to the prospect of being prevented by legal challenges from implementing this policy before the next general election”.

A memorandum of understanding between the UK and Rwanda Governments agreed in April this year arranged for migrant people who arrive via the Channel to be deported to East Africa, where they could then claim asylum to remain in Rwanda.

A planned flight in June was prevented from taking off after a last-minute intervention from the European Court of Human Rights.

Should Braverman’s plan to prevent people arriving via irregular routes from claiming asylum succeed, then those coming to the UK in small boats will face deportation, potentially to Rwanda.

Braverman also plans to increase the use of immigration detention facilities.

“The Government cannot continue to run roughshod over its international responsibilities and threaten refugees with deportation or jail simply for asking for help,” said Naor-Hilton. “It must change tack and create a protection system based on compassion and justice”.

“The Government is failing in its duty to survivors and rather than commit to doing better, they are stigmatising survivors risking everything to come forward,” said Esslemont. “There is no reason for victims to abuse a system which offers no guaranteed support, safe housing, or immigration protection”.